Poll of the Day > Why do they call it circumcision instead of male genitalia mutilation?

(+) Yeah! (+)

The "benefits" really aren't that significant to justify it. Basic hygiene and safe sex is good enough and UTI/phimosis is pretty treatable.

Anisoptera posted...

The "benefits" really aren't that significant to justify it. Basic hygiene and safe sex is good enough and UTI/phimosis is pretty treatable.

I didnt say its enough to justify it. But thats what people are going to kept using. And because it still does take away the risk of phimosis away completely, and get rid of it for some that have it, circumcision will stick around. Forever, most likely...
---

Anisoptera posted...

The "benefits" really aren't that significant to justify it. Basic hygiene and safe sex is good enough and UTI/phimosis is pretty treatable.

What a load of shit. What does a female know about male circumcision anyway? Probably even less than a male who was never circumcised.

As a male who was circumcised when I was 36, I probably have more insight than most men about the procedure. Though it has been many years now since it was done, I still feel a certain amount of resentment toward those who made the decision not to snip me as a tot. However, in defense of my parents, it was indeed their decision to make. I understand this. They just made it for the same misguided reasons many parents make when taking the cheap way out.

When I finally did get it done, it cost a hell of a lot of money and took me out of work for a full week. I really could have done without the whole mess, but the results were certainly worth it. I cannot help be infuriated when I hear the cop-out excuse "oh, I'll just let him decide...".

I am uncut and I blame that for my inability to pleasure myself normally...
---

Solid Sonic posted...

I am uncut and I blame that for my inability to pleasure myself normally...

I never had much difficulty pleasuring myself before or after, so there may be some issue you have.

It can be done, I just need a pillow to do it.

It doesn't make any sense short of something physical.
---

Solid Sonic posted...

It can be done, I just need a pillow to do it.

It doesn't make any sense short of something physical.

Yeah, your head.
---

LinkPizza posted...

No. I dont feel wronged becuase I havent been wronged. Also, people can have stuff done on them without their consent because they have someone who has to consent for them. Such as adults who need surgery now and ask the next of kin to consent. Or parents who have to take children in for surgery and have to consent. So, this isnt different. A baby cant consent. So the parents do it for them. Also, just because you think being circumcised is me being wronged, it doesnt make it so. And even if it was, which its not, then Id be glad it happened.

The main difference here is that it is necessary for a medical reason that they are having the surgery and need a family member (or parent) to give consent. Circumcision at birth in the vast majority of cases isn't necessary so the argument falls flat.
---

DrCidd posted...

LinkPizza posted...

No. I dont feel wronged becuase I havent been wronged. Also, people can have stuff done on them without their consent because they have someone who has to consent for them. Such as adults who need surgery now and ask the next of kin to consent. Or parents who have to take children in for surgery and have to consent. So, this isnt different. A baby cant consent. So the parents do it for them. Also, just because you think being circumcised is me being wronged, it doesnt make it so. And even if it was, which its not, then Id be glad it happened.

The main difference here is that it is necessary for a medical reason that they are having the surgery and need a family member (or parent) to give consent. Circumcision at birth in the vast majority of cases isn't necessary so the argument falls flat.

No. It doesnt. In the end, the parents still have to make choices for the baby. And they probably wont take that right away from parent. So, it still becomes their decision.
---

It's just hilarious that people try to justify it by saying that it prevents something that probably won't happen in the first place. Phimosis and balanitis are extremely rare among uncircumcised males, especially those who know how to properly wash themselves.

It's like putting a canvas over the sky and blocking out the sun because it will prevent an astronomically small group of people from getting skin cancer.

Did I mention that circumcision statistically kills more babies than males who end up needing a circumcision for these medical reasons? Would you still be for circumcision if it killed your infant son? Would you feel responsible for his death because you had a medically unnecessary surgery done that resulted in the loss of his life?
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Solid Sonic posted...

It can be done, I just need a pillow to do it.

It doesn't make any sense short of something physical.

Yeah, your head.

You are very harsh.
---

It's better to regret being uncircumcised than to regret being circumcised. If you regret having intact foreskin you can opt for surgery to have it done. If you regret being circumcised, there's not much you could do. You could buy a device to help you stretch out some skin, but the process takes years and it doesn't restore any damage already done to the glans.

Solid Sonic posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Solid Sonic posted...

It can be done, I just need a pillow to do it.

It doesn't make any sense short of something physical.

Yeah, your head.

You are very harsh.

Wanking isn't a post-circumcision activity, you can figure it out if you try.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Solid Sonic posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Solid Sonic posted...

It can be done, I just need a pillow to do it.

It doesn't make any sense short of something physical.

Yeah, your head.

You are very harsh.

Wanking isn't a post-circumcision activity, you can figure it out if you try.

Isnt solid uncut?
---

LinkPizza posted...

Isnt solid uncut?

He's blaming his foreskin for needing to hump his pillow.
---

I feel like this is going to turn into ridicule.
---

best way to get a 100 post topic on gamefaqs? make it about dicks or tips

GasMonkey posted...

best way to get a 100 post topic on gamefaqs? make it about dicks or tips

Yeah the gross-dick brigade loves talking about how their dicks aren't gross.
---

StoneRevolver posted...

Uncut is gross.

chopping of part of your body is gross
---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

StoneRevolver posted...

Uncut is gross.

chopping of part of your body is gross

Unless it make you penis pretty!
---

DocDelicious posted...

Yeah the gross-dick brigade loves talking about how their dicks aren't gross.

I don't think any anti-circumcision people here mentioned, or care what a dick looks like, cut or not. The cut-boys are the ones who are obsessed with the look of their (and other men's) penises.

The only point we are arguing is that it's not right to circumcise and infant who can't give consent, unless the procedure is needed to treat, reverse or improve a medical condition.

The main argument I see from cut-boys is "but mine's sexy" "smeggy dick" and "women, or nurses may or may not find it repulsive". Also the denial that your parents robbed you of your foreskin.

Here's a reality check though. Women pretty much find all penises weird and/or gross looking.
---

I feel peopel don't realize the point of circumcision's. Yes, they are religion based but they were also medically necessary back in the day. Modern medicine and hygiene has made them less needed but a uncircumcised penis has a higher risk of medical problems and infections. Especially back in the day. Of course in modern society it isn't as important but it still has some hygienic and medical benefits.
---

LinkPizza posted...

Unless it make you penis pretty!

Just stick some lipstick on it, ok? Unless you want others to do it for you.
---

DrCidd posted...

DocDelicious posted...

Yeah the gross-dick brigade loves talking about how their dicks aren't gross.

I don't think any anti-circumcision people here mentioned, or care what a dick looks like, cut or not. The cut-boys are the ones who are obsessed with the look of their (and other men's) penises.

The only point we are arguing is that it's not right to circumcise and infant who can't give consent, unless the procedure is needed to treat, reverse or improve a medical condition.

The main argument I see from cut-boys is "but mine's sexy" "smeggy dick" and "women, or nurses may or may not find it repulsive". Also the denial that your parents robbed you of your foreskin.

Here's a reality check though. Women pretty much find all penises weird and/or gross looking.

That was on ARE...

Anyway, the reason I also dont like the let them choose is because by not getting them circumcised, you basically are choosing for them to not be circumcised. Mainly because if they arent circumcised already, when they get older they most likely wont want to. Not because of all the reasons you all have been mentioning. But I think the main reason will be because nobody wants to change the dick they grow up with. Most circumcised people like their penis. Just like how most uncircumcised guys like theirs. The next biggest reason would probably be the pain of the surgery. Which Im glad I dont remember. Which is because I was a baby when it happened.

But thats why I dont like the let them choose thing. Because, in the end, its almost like theyre still choosing. Its just their choosing to keep you uncircumcised. Thats just how I feel about it...
---

Hyyr posted...

Anisoptera posted...

The "benefits" really aren't that significant to justify it. Basic hygiene and safe sex is good enough and UTI/phimosis is pretty treatable.

What a load of shit. What does a female know about male circumcision anyway? Probably even less than a male who was never circumcised.

As a male who was circumcised when I was 36, I probably have more insight than most men about the procedure. Though it has been many years now since it was done, I still feel a certain amount of resentment toward those who made the decision not to snip me as a tot. However, in defense of my parents, it was indeed their decision to make. I understand this. They just made it for the same misguided reasons many parents make when taking the cheap way out.

When I finally did get it done, it cost a hell of a lot of money and took me out of work for a full week. I really could have done without the whole mess, but the results were certainly worth it. I cannot help be infuriated when I hear the cop-out excuse "oh, I'll just let him decide...".

I meant to respond to this earlier. Not really anything important. But I have a co-worker who feels the same as you. He also got a circumcision later in life. And was kind of mad that his parents didnt circumcise him when he was a baby. It just reminded me of him when you told us your story.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Unless it make you penis pretty!

Just stick some lipstick on it, ok? Unless you want others to do it for you.

I always let the others do it for me...
---

LinkPizza posted...

DrCidd posted...

DocDelicious posted...

Yeah the gross-dick brigade loves talking about how their dicks aren't gross.

I don't think any anti-circumcision people here mentioned, or care what a dick looks like, cut or not. The cut-boys are the ones who are obsessed with the look of their (and other men's) penises.

The only point we are arguing is that it's not right to circumcise and infant who can't give consent, unless the procedure is needed to treat, reverse or improve a medical condition.

The main argument I see from cut-boys is "but mine's sexy" "smeggy dick" and "women, or nurses may or may not find it repulsive". Also the denial that your parents robbed you of your foreskin.

Here's a reality check though. Women pretty much find all penises weird and/or gross looking.

That was on ARE...

Anyway, the reason I also dont like the let them choose is because by not getting them circumcised, you basically are choosing for them to not be circumcised. Mainly because if they arent circumcised already, when they get older they most likely wont want to. Not because of all the reasons you all have been mentioning. But I think the main reason will be because nobody wants to change the dick they grow up with. Most circumcised people like their penis. Just like how most uncircumcised guys like theirs. The next biggest reason would probably be the pain of the surgery. Which Im glad I dont remember. Which is because I was a baby when it happened.

But thats why I dont like the let them choose thing. Because, in the end, its almost like theyre still choosing. Its just their choosing to keep you uncircumcised. Thats just how I feel about it...

By not choosing, the child has a choice if they want. By doing it, you deny them the option. If they won't do it by choice, maybe it's entirely unnecessary and making your child suffer unnecessarily?

Your argument is simply "I like cut up dicks so I won't let my son have one I wouldn't personally suck" and that's gross.
---

LinkPizza posted...

But thats why I dont like the let them choose thing. Because, in the end, its almost like theyre still choosing. Its just their choosing to keep you uncircumcised.

But if you choose to have your child circumcised, you're choosing to put their life at risk for a medical problem that is highly unlikely to happen in the first place. Again, I'd like to point out that more children die from complications arising from poorly executed circumcisions than there are males who need it done later on in life.

Are you (you being anyone who's pro circumcision) willing to potentially kill your kid over a medical issue he may never have to deal with anyway?
Would you feel responsible that your decision (to have him circumcised without his consent) resulted in the loss of his life?
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

DrCidd posted...

DocDelicious posted...

Yeah the gross-dick brigade loves talking about how their dicks aren't gross.

I don't think any anti-circumcision people here mentioned, or care what a dick looks like, cut or not. The cut-boys are the ones who are obsessed with the look of their (and other men's) penises.

The only point we are arguing is that it's not right to circumcise and infant who can't give consent, unless the procedure is needed to treat, reverse or improve a medical condition.

The main argument I see from cut-boys is "but mine's sexy" "smeggy dick" and "women, or nurses may or may not find it repulsive". Also the denial that your parents robbed you of your foreskin.

Here's a reality check though. Women pretty much find all penises weird and/or gross looking.

That was on ARE...

Anyway, the reason I also dont like the let them choose is because by not getting them circumcised, you basically are choosing for them to not be circumcised. Mainly because if they arent circumcised already, when they get older they most likely wont want to. Not because of all the reasons you all have been mentioning. But I think the main reason will be because nobody wants to change the dick they grow up with. Most circumcised people like their penis. Just like how most uncircumcised guys like theirs. The next biggest reason would probably be the pain of the surgery. Which Im glad I dont remember. Which is because I was a baby when it happened.

But thats why I dont like the let them choose thing. Because, in the end, its almost like theyre still choosing. Its just their choosing to keep you uncircumcised. Thats just how I feel about it...

By not choosing, the child has a choice if they want. By doing it, you deny them the option. If they won't do it by choice, maybe it's entirely unnecessary and making your child suffer unnecessarily?

Your argument is simply "I like cut up dicks so I won't let my son have one I wouldn't personally suck" and that's gross.

Im just saying how I feel. By pretending to let them have a choice, it more or less choosing for them to be uncircumcised. Because most people dont want to change the dick theyve had for 18 years. I just dont feel they actually have a real unbiased opinion. By waiting, the bias is pretty much ALWAYS in the favor of uncircumcised.

Medically, it literally gets rid of a chance of needing to be cut later because of medical issues. I know that proper hygiene can help, but even then, it could still happen. Only when uncircumcised, though.

Also, I have had sex with uncircumcised people, so that has nothing to do with it. Still think theyre gross, though.
---

DrCidd posted...

LinkPizza posted...

But thats why I dont like the let them choose thing. Because, in the end, its almost like theyre still choosing. Its just their choosing to keep you uncircumcised.

But if you choose to have your child circumcised, you're choosing to put their life at risk for a medical problem that is highly unlikely to happen in the first place. Again, I'd like to point out that more children die from complications arising from poorly executed circumcisions than there are males who need it done later on in life.

Are you (you being anyone who's pro circumcision) willing to potentially kill your kid over a medical issue he may never have to deal with anyway?
Would you feel responsible that your decision (to have him circumcised without his consent) resulted in the loss of his life?

The reason more probably die from it than people who need it later is because so many people are circumcised. If you had less people already circumcised, more people would most likely need it in the future. A bunch of circumcise people may have needed it in the future. But we would never know since they ar circumcised. And any surgery can end up causing a death. Sure, Id feel bad. But the chances are low, even if they are still there. You havent changed my mind on getting one for my children, if I even decided to have any. I dont expect to change your mind, either. Im just saying thats how I feel about it.
---

If people are passing it off as a preventative measure against something or other, then we should probably remove infants' gallbladders, tonsils, and appendices too. Just to be sure.
---

Mover_of_Zigs posted...

If people are passing it off as a preventative measure against something or other, then we should probably remove infants' gallbladders, tonsils, and appendices too. Just to be sure.

Probably. Might as well...
---

There's also the fact that nobody here has mentioned. Sex with a uncircumcised penis is better for women, because the gliding action of the foreskin acts as a mechanical lubricant. IE, no lube necessary for regular sex.

Any woman who prefers the feel of a cut penis just hasn't had sex with an uncut one. Or she can't get over the natural look of an uncut penis because she's seen so many cut ones in all the porn she watches, so she's unwilling to try.

The only reason cut-boys are okay with it is because they don't know what having a foreskin is like. Look up the regret rate of men who were circumcised later in life for non-medical reasons. IE: Girlfriend didn't like my anteater dick so I got it snipped. Everything is worse now.
---

DrCidd posted...

Sex with a uncircumcised penis is better for women

Unless you're a woman and have had both how would you know? Also it's probably down to preference and the individual tbh. Still why not gay/bi blokes too huh?
---

DrCidd posted...

There's also the fact that nobody here has mentioned. Sex with a uncircumcised penis is better for women, because the gliding action of the foreskin acts as a mechanical lubricant. IE, no lube necessary for regular sex.

Any woman who prefers the feel of a cut penis just hasn't had sex with an uncut one. Or she can't get over the natural look of an uncut penis because she's seen so many cut ones in all the porn she watches, so she's unwilling to try.

The only reason cut-boys are okay with it is because they don't know what having a foreskin is like. Look up the regret rate of men who were circumcised later in life for non-medical reasons. IE: Girlfriend didn't like my anteater dick so I got it snipped. Everything is worse now.

Wouldn't that only matter in the case on condomless sex? And how would you know that they would definitely like it better. Every woman is different and likes different things. Also, Im sure there are people that regret it. But there are probably others who love it. All the people who love it or regret it dont all write articles about it...

As a gay guy, Id still use lube, anyway. It can be pretty tight. Not to mention, even with lube, they sometime need more...

Also, Idk what you think is cut-boys are missing out on...
---

wwinterj25 posted...

DrCidd posted...

Sex with a uncircumcised penis is better for women

Unless you're a woman and have had both how would you know? Also it's probably down to preference and the individual tbh. Still why not gay/bi blokes too huh?

Well, judging by the response I typically got from any woman I've had sex with, or many online testimonies which you can find yourself. I guess it also applies to gay people as well, but only bottoms. Tops would feel no difference whether the other guy is circumcised or not.
---

DrCidd posted...

wwinterj25 posted...

DrCidd posted...

Sex with a uncircumcised penis is better for women

Unless you're a woman and have had both how would you know? Also it's probably down to preference and the individual tbh. Still why not gay/bi blokes too huh?

Well, judging by the response I typically got from any woman I've had sex with, or many online testimonies which you can find yourself. I guess it also applies to gay people as well, but only bottoms. Tops would feel no difference whether the other guy is circumcised or not.

True that is tops feel no difference. But with the guys Ive talked to, it does seem to make much of a difference. To the point where they like one type more than another. Most talk about the size of it. But normally not saying that cut was better. According to what theyve said to me, at least. Though they could be lying...
---

LinkPizza posted...

By pretending to let them have a choice, it more or less choosing for them to be uncircumcised. Because most people dont want to change the dick theyve had for 18 years.

People who grow up with 7 fingers generally don't care for getting prosthetics later in life, does that mean it's okay to lop fingers off your newborn?
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

By pretending to let them have a choice, it more or less choosing for them to be uncircumcised. Because most people dont want to change the dick theyve had for 18 years.

People who grow up with 7 fingers generally don't care for getting prosthetics later in life, does that mean it's okay to lop fingers off your newborn?

Go ahead and do whatever you want to your baby. But everyone knows theres a difference between changing the appearance of a penis and lobbing off fingers. If you think theyre the same, then IDK what to tell you.
---

The point is...I've never heard of anyone who died from having a foreskin.
In America, there are at least 100 babies a year who die from having it removed.

That alone should be enough reason not to do it.

Most people here seem to think that we have a problem with them being circumcised. We don't. The problem we have is this archaic "tradition" that is being forced on babies who don't even have the ability to consent.
---

LinkPizza posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

By pretending to let them have a choice, it more or less choosing for them to be uncircumcised. Because most people dont want to change the dick theyve had for 18 years.

People who grow up with 7 fingers generally don't care for getting prosthetics later in life, does that mean it's okay to lop fingers off your newborn?

Go ahead and do whatever you want to your baby. But everyone knows theres a difference between changing the appearance of a penis and lobbing off fingers. If you think theyre the same, then IDK what to tell you.

They're both cutting off body parts, scarring the body, and reducing intended capability. If you can't see the similarities, I'm glad you're not having kids.
---

DrCidd posted...

Well, judging by the response I typically got from any woman I've had sex with, or many online testimonies which you can find yourself.

So you regularly talking about other guys penises wit the woman you fuck? That's a interesting kink man.

DrCidd posted...

I guess it also applies to gay people as well, but only bottoms. Tops would feel no difference whether the other guy is circumcised or not.

Other than oral and/or a handjob sure. Although yes I consider actual penetration to be sex.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

So you regularly talking about other guys penises wit the woman you f***? That's a interesting kink man.

No, it's more like she says "You're the first uncircumcised guy I've ever been with. It's so much better."
---

DrCidd posted...

No, it's more like she says "You're the first uncircumcised guy I've ever been with. It's so much better."

All woman you've had sex with say this to you? Huh. That's a weird way to get you in the mood but hey I don't judge.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

By pretending to let them have a choice, it more or less choosing for them to be uncircumcised. Because most people dont want to change the dick theyve had for 18 years.

People who grow up with 7 fingers generally don't care for getting prosthetics later in life, does that mean it's okay to lop fingers off your newborn?

Go ahead and do whatever you want to your baby. But everyone knows theres a difference between changing the appearance of a penis and lobbing off fingers. If you think theyre the same, then IDK what to tell you.

They're both cutting off body parts, scarring the body, and reducing intended capability. If you can't see the similarities, I'm glad you're not having kids.

Becuase youre making it sound like that. Cutting off a whole finger means you cant use it. But cutting off only the fore skin still allows you to fully use the penis. Cutting off the finger leaves a stun of a finger. Cutting off the fore skin leaves a still intect penis. Its not like we cant feel lots of pleasure still. Because we can. Trust me. Id definitely be much better with kids than you... For more than just reason that deal with penises, since apparently, thats the only thing that seems to matter to you when it comes to someone having kids...

wwinterj25 posted...

DrCidd posted...

No, it's more like she says "You're the first uncircumcised guy I've ever been with. It's so much better."

All woman you've had sex with say this to you? Huh. That's a weird way to get you in the mood but hey I don't judge.

I would also agree thats weird if all women say that to you...
---

wwinterj25 posted...

That's a weird way to get you in the mood

It's more of an after the fact, that they came to a realization. I think you're misinterpreting my words on purpose with the intention of just being a smartass.

Also, I think you don't know the meaning of typically. Typically means, generally, normally, usually. Not always. There are exceptions. I'm guessing you don't typically score well on your report cards. Or didn't when you were in school in the case you've already somehow graduated.

Also worth mentioning, it's estimated that 111-125 infants need to be circumcised in order to prevent 1 UTI, which is easily treatable without mutilating the child's penis.
---

LinkPizza posted...

Becuase youre making it sound like that. Cutting off a whole finger means you cant use it.

Cutting off the whole foreskin means you can't use your foreskin.

LinkPizza posted...

But cutting off only the fore skin still allows you to fully use the penis.

Cutting off only a finger still allows you to use your hand (but with reduced tactile feedback like with your dick).

LinkPizza posted...

Its not like we cant feel lots of pleasure still. Because we can. Trust me.

80% of great is still good, just not great.

LinkPizza posted...

Id definitely be much better with kids than you...

You'd cut your son's dick for your viewing pleasure, most people are better parents.

LinkPizza posted...

For more than just reason that deal with penises, since apparently, thats the only thing that seems to matter to you when it comes to someone having kids...

A good parent doesn't willingly mutilate their child, turns out that's a big sticking point with good parents.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Cutting off the whole foreskin means you can't use your foreskin.

But the penis still works. Which is the important part.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Cutting off only a finger still allows you to use your hand (but with reduced tactile feedback like with your dick).

But the finger itself won't work. Unlike the dick, which still works. Which is, again, the important part.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

80% of great is still good, just not great.

Idk. I know my boyfriend can bring my dick enough pleasure that I have to stop him sometimes because it's almost too much. Maybe others just need a better partner. I get plenty or pleasure.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You'd cut your son's dick for your viewing pleasure, most people are better parents.

I cut it off to eliminate the possibility of problems that only arise from uncircumcised penises. Probably about the same as the average parent.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

A good parent doesn't willingly mutilate their child, turns out that's a big sticking point with good parents.

Plenty of good parent circumcise their children, whether you want to believe it or not.
---

LinkPizza posted...

But the penis still works. Which is the important part.

Read the whole post before quoting.

LinkPizza posted...

But the finger itself won't work. Unlike the dick, which still works. Which is, again, the important part.

The finger is the analogue of the foreskin. Your foreskin stopped working when it got snipped.

LinkPizza posted...

Idk. I know my boyfriend can bring my dick enough pleasure that I have to stop him sometimes because it's almost too much. Maybe others just need a better partner. I get plenty or pleasure.

That's nice, dear.

LinkPizza posted...

I cut it off to eliminate the possibility of problems that only arise from uncircumcised penises. Probably about the same as the average parent.

Eliminating non-issues with potentially fatal surgery is negligent behaviour.

LinkPizza posted...

Plenty of good parent circumcise their children, whether you want to believe it or not.

And plenty of terrible parents don't bother, that doesn't mean circumcision isn't a terrible act.
---

DrCidd posted...

I think you're misinterpreting my words on purpose with the intention of just being a smartass.

Whatever makes you think that?
Still I just think you're pulling stuff out of your arse to try and support your argument.
---